actually there does seem to be. what a person want or doesn't want on their private property is their right.

some seem to think just because a business is open to the public, that it's public property. not true, it's still private property and someone owns it, meaning they can prohibit or allow whatever they so choose to.

now fully i don't agree with most reasons a propery owner may have for prohibiting a person from carrying, but i will myself abide and respect their wishes and rights. in simple blunt terms, it comes down to respecting others rights.

here's a link to a website that should explain a persons private property rights.

Saying that, doesnt a business owner have the right to post signs saying a patrons 1st amendment rights are void in his establishment?

Why? That's not the case at all. Your rights to carry haven't been infringed or negated by his decision regarding his personal property. By your logic anyone wanting to rob your home or attack you can do so with a gun. Do you believe they have that right? The first amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Does that mean your rights are being taken away?

Saying that, doesnt a business owner have the right to post signs saying a patrons 1st amendment rights are void in his establishment?

though i am no lawyer and have no law degree, but i would think they could. many companies can restrict what you can say while on company property. again it comes down to choice IMO. if you don't like what an establishments policies are, then you have th choice to go elsewhere. this is strictly my opinion on this though.

Federal Law (18 USC 930) prohibits the possession of firearms in a Federal Facility but has some exceptions. One exception is 3.) the lawful carrying of firearms incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. Unless your Post Madter agreed first I wouldn't risk going to a federal prison. It has nothing to do with any state.

In a local forum (MI) several 2A attorney's debated this issue. The consensus was the parking lot (customer, not employee) was safe. The building might be off limits, but they wanted to know who would be the first to test it.

I asked a question that never got satisfactorily answered, is the post service a true federal agency?

actually there does seem to be. what a person want or doesn't want on their private property is their right.

some seem to think just because a business is open to the public, that it's public property. not true, it's still private property and someone owns it, meaning they can prohibit or allow whatever they so choose to.

now fully i don't agree with most reasons a propery owner may have for prohibiting a person from carrying, but i will myself abide and respect their wishes and rights. in simple blunt terms, it comes down to respecting others rights.

here's a link to a website that should explain a persons private property rights.

Axxe, that was exactly what I was looking for! Thank you very much and I'm not sure how the debate can continue without acknowledging someone is carrying on posted property simply because they do not care about the owners rights.

In a local forum (MI) several 2A attorney's debated this issue. The consensus was the parking lot (customer, not employee) was safe. The building might be off limits, but they wanted to know who would be the first to test it.

I asked a question that never got satisfactorily answered, is the post service a true federal agency?

My understanding is it's Federal Property and Federal Law applies.

__________________
3 gallons of crazy in a 2 gallon bucket

Know your limits; exceed them often

That which does not kill me had better run pretty damn fast.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but hollow points expand on impact.

Axxe, that was exactly what I was looking for! Thank you very much and I'm not sure how the debate can continue without acknowledging someone is carrying on posted property simply because they do not care about the owners rights.

i have always held to the belief that a property owners rights trump those who carry.

if a business has a no smoking sign, or a sign that says, no shoes, no shirt, no service, you have two very important choices, you either abide by the restrictions, or go elsewhere. there for, IMO, there is not any difference in the carrying of a firearm. either a person decides to abide by the restriction, or go elsewhere. seems very simple to me and has been for long time. either way, it is respecting another persons rights.

i can also put this into another viewpoint. if a school, or Post Office, or a courthouse says firearms are prohibited, and those say they would abide by those restrictions, but would ignore those of a private property owner, then why would they want to abide by one, but not the other? some would respect one but not the other? seems kind of contridictory to me.

i can also put this into another viewpoint. if a school, or Post Office, or a courthouse says firearms are prohibited, and those say they would abide by those restrictions, but would ignore those of a private property owner, then why would they want to abide by one, but not the other? some would respect one but not the other? seems kind of contridictory to me.

That's a very interesting take on it. Seems they would be saying that the government's rights are more important than the individual's. if everyone stops and thinks about that for a minute, I doubt that anyone on this forum would knowingly say something like that, and thanks for the link about property rights.

I think maybe we've beat this horse enough and the two sides are not going to change the other's viewpoint. Maybe we should let this thread die and all skip over to the 1911 section and drool over some more photo's of Canebrake's toys.

It seems the rights are delegated to the owner...that is, private property is owned by an individual or company (business) and the post office, for all practical purposes is owned by the government. It's not a "government" thing in my mind but a property ownership thing....IMO, of course.